Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Barry Lind
Subject Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...
Date
Msg-id 4033C095.9070205@xythos.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...  (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
I agree with Tom here.  I have used the Oracle NOWAIT feature in the 
past and think it is a great feature IMHO.  But when you need to use it, 
you want it to apply very specifically to a single statement.  Using a 
sledge hammer when you need a tweezers isn't the right way to go.

thanks,
--Barry

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> 
>>The question is whether we should have a GUC variable to control no
>>waiting on locks or add NO WAIT to specific SQL commands.
> 
> 
> That's only a minor part of the issue.  The major problem I have with
> the patch is that it affects *all* locks, including system-internal
> lock attempts that the user is probably not even aware of much less
> able to control.  It's like giving someone a poorly-aligned shotgun
> when what they need is a rifle --- they'll end up putting holes in
> a lot of other things besides what they intended.
> 
> I think that what we actually want is something that is narrowly
> tailored to affect only row-level locks taken by SELECT FOR UPDATE,
> and maybe one or two other places that (a) people can make specific
> use-cases for, and (b) we can be certain are only invoked by user
> commands and never indirectly from behind-the-scenes system operations.
> 
> The reason for proposing syntax rather than a GUC variable is the same
> one of control.  If you set a GUC variable then it will be hard to
> prevent it from breaking operations other than the one you thought you
> intended.  (Example: you think you are only causing your SELECT FOR
> UPDATE to error out, but what about ones done behind the scenes for
> foreign key checks?)  GUC variables are good for stuff that tends to
> apply application-wide, which is why I thought regex_flavor wasn't too
> dangerous, but they're terrible for functions that you want to apply to
> only certain specific operations.  And I can't imagine an app where that
> wouldn't be true for NO WAIT.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...